Cuts to Medicaid funding will send ‘tidal wave' through Oklahoma's health system
There's been a lot of talk lately in Congress about cutting Medicaid. Known in Oklahoma as SoonerCare and SoonerSelect, Medicaid provides health coverage to low-income Oklahomans, including pregnant women, children, elderly Oklahomans, people with disabilities, veterans and families in need.
More than 900,000 Oklahomans — nearly 1 in 4 — depend on Medicaid to access the medical and behavioral health care they need.
As an OB-GYN with decades of experience caring for women and families in Oklahoma, I've seen firsthand what these programs have provided for so many families.
Medicaid pays for 52% of Oklahoma births and covers 47% of all Oklahoma children. Thanks to Medicaid, I've seen expectant mothers receive access to critical prenatal care and postpartum support they couldn't have afforded otherwise, ensuring better health outcomes for both moms and babies.
Medicaid plays a vital role in supporting the health and future of Oklahoma children. Children enrolled in Medicaid miss fewer school days, are more likely to graduate high school and become healthier adults. In a state where nearly half of our children rely on Medicaid, this is a lifeline we can't afford to lose.
Every year, Oklahoma receives $7 billion from Medicaid, 68% of the federal funding sent to our state. Think of it as an investment that pays dividends through health care savings and continued reinvestment in the community through salaries, taxes and the purchase of goods and services. Patients on Medicaid who have access to primary and preventative care services are less likely to end up in the ER, where health care costs are far more expensive.
Losing even a fraction of Oklahoma's Medicaid funding would create a substantial gap for our state and send a tidal wave through our interconnected health care system. When one part of the system fails, the issue doesn't disappear — the burden is simply shifted elsewhere.
More: Proposed Medicaid cuts would be devastating to Oklahoma's most vulnerable | Opinion
Cutting Medicaid wouldn't just hurt patients; it could be detrimental to access to care in our state. These funds are a vital lifeline for rural hospitals, many of which are struggling to keep their doors open. Further cuts could strike a fatal blow to these hospitals, negatively affecting not only the health of these communities but also their economy, as many potential employers consider health care resources when expanding into new areas.
We can't overlook the hardworking physicians who would take a hit if Medicaid is cut. Many of those who serve a larger number of Medicaid patients — such as pediatricians, OB-GYNS, psychiatrists and family doctors — work on slim margins, and if Medicaid is cut, doctors could be forced to close their practices altogether.
The health of our state is worth protecting. Continuing to invest in Medicaid is the best way to ensure Oklahomans receive the care they deserve.
Dr. Julie Strebel is an obstetrician-gynecologist in private practice with Mercy Hospital in Oklahoma City. She is president-elect of the Oklahoma State Medical Association.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Any cuts to Medicaid would harm Oklahomans, health system | Opinion

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Brazil's Supreme Court justices agree to make social media companies liable for user content
BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — The majority of justices on Brazil's Supreme Court have agreed to make social media companies liable for illegal postings by their users, in a landmark case for Latin America with implications for U.S. relations. Brazil's top court decided to rule on two different cases to reach an understanding on how to deal with social media companies as reports of fraud, child pornography and violence among teenagers become rampant online. Critics warn such measures could threaten free speech as platforms preemptively remove content that could be problematic. Gilmar Mendes on Wednesday became the sixth of the court's 11 justices to vote to open a path for companies like Meta, X and Microsoft to be sued and pay fines for content published by their users. Voting is ongoing but a simple majority is all that is needed for the measure to pass. The ruling will come after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned of possible visa restrictions against foreign officials allegedly involved in censoring American citizens. One such official reportedly is Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has taken measures against social media outlets he deemed to have not complied with Brazilian law. The only dissenting Brazilian justice so far is André Mendonça and his vote was made public last week. The court is yet to decide how such regulations will be enacted. Mendonça said free speech on social media is key for the publication of information that "holds powerful public institutions to account, including governments, political elites and digital platforms.' Justice Flávio Dino, the first to vote on Wednesday, reminded his colleagues that recent cases of school shootings in Brazil were stimulated on social media. He read out postings by one user who said he was happy by watching families of dead children 'weeping, bleeding, dying.' 'I think social media has not made humanity closer to what it has produced in best fashion,' he said. The social media proposal would become law once voting is finished and the result is published. But Brazil's Congress could still pass another law to reverse the measure. The current legislation states social media companies can only be held responsible if they do not remove hazardous content after a court order. Public debate on regulating social networks increased in Brazil in the aftermath of the Jan. 8 riot in 2023, when supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro ransacked Congress, the presidential palace and the Supreme Court in the capital, Brasilia. Platforms need to be pro-active in regulating content, said Alvaro Palma de Jorge, a law professor at the Rio-based Getulio Vargas Foundation, a think tank and university. 'They need to adopt certain precautions that are not compatible with simply waiting for a judge to eventually issue a decision ordering the removal of that content,' Palma de Jorge said. Wednesday's ruling brings Brazil's approach to big tech closer to the European Union's approach, which has sought to rein in the power of social media companies and other digital platforms. Rendering platforms automatically accountable for content on their platforms may infringe freedom of speech as they could resort to preemptively removing content, according to the Sao-Paulo based Brazilian Chamber of Digital Economy, an organization that represents sectors of the digital economy. 'This type of liability favors large companies with robust legal structures, to the detriment of smaller, national players, which negatively impacts competition,' said the organization, adding that the decision may increase barriers to innovation. ___ Hughes reported from Rio de Janeiro.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Donald Trump and Josh Hawley Are Wrong To Call for Jailing People Who Burn the American Flag
One of the more relevant maxims today, particularly in the age of social media, is the fact that saying the same thing over and over again does not make it a reality. There are many people—across the political spectrum—who should internalize this. President Donald Trump is one of them. While speaking at Fort Bragg on Tuesday, he re-upped an idea he has floated many times: "People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year," he told a crowd of U.S. service members in a now-viral clip. "And we'll see if we can get that done." They cannot, in fact, get that done. Trump is, of course, entitled to oppose flag burning on moral grounds. Many understandably find the act tasteless and offensive, as is their right. His administration will not be able, however, to address that using the blunt force of the law, as the highest law of the land already protects it as a form of free expression. This isn't new. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment," wrote U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in 1989, "it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." That came from his opinion in Texas v. Johnson, in which the Court said it was unconstitutional when Texas used a law criminalizing flag desecration to prosecute Gregory Lee Johnson, who had burned an American flag to protest President Ronald Reagan during the Republican National Convention. Johnson was sentenced to one year in jail. Sound familiar? Some lawmakers weren't happy with the Court's decision, so Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The law prescribed up to one year of incarceration for anyone who "knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon" any American flag. In trying to dance around the Court's recent ruling, legislators got creative and shifted the focus of the law to preserving its literal physical integrity, which they hoped would be seen as content neutral. They were unsuccessful. "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering," wrote Brennan the next year in United States v. Eichman. The Court ruled the law unconstitutional. But what about recent high-profile prosecutions against people who burned the pride flag? There is a reason those cases were allowed to proceed under the Constitution: They concerned defendants who burned flags they stole. Law enforcement should not pursue hate crime enhancements for such offenses—or for any offenses, as prosecutors should be in the business of punishing bad acts, not bad thoughts. But there is a difference under the law between burning a flag you own, and stealing someone's property so you can then destroy it. You have a right to burn any type of flag you want, so long as it belongs to you, whether that be a pride flag, a pirate flag, a Pizza Hut flag, a "NO STEP ON SNEK" flag, an unofficial Antarctica flag (which appropriately looks a bit like a mistake), and an American flag. The list goes on. The debate here is increasingly fraught in a political climate that has a large appetite for red meat. "I'm with Trump on this one," said Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), an attorney, on X. "Anyone who burns our flag committing a crime should go to jail—double the sentence. Evidently all of Fort Bragg agrees." His phrasing is clever. Someone who "burns our flag committing a crime" will already be subject to arrest, prosecution, and jail for the crime they committed, because crimes are already illegal. That includes, for example, stealing and destroying an American flag—or any property—that doesn't belong to you. And, as Hawley certainly knows, if he is "with Trump on this one," then he is on board with prosecuting the expressive act itself, as the president has made clear over and over again. The latter idea is what some U.S. troops were heard cheering during Trump's speech. Their service in defense of freedom is admirable. But it's worth noting that they take oaths to the Constitution, not to the political moment. As Brennan reminded us decades ago, that document also protects the freedoms of people whose expression you may completely despise; any effort to uphold it has to include your ideological opposites, or it doesn't mean a lot. Perhaps ironically, nothing is more emblematic of that ideal than the American flag itself—and your right to do with it what you wish. The post Why Donald Trump and Josh Hawley Are Wrong To Call for Jailing People Who Burn the American Flag appeared first on
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump parade to take place Saturday alongside nationwide and local protests
TERRE HAUTE, Ind. (WTWO/WAWV)— U.S. President Donald Trump plans to have a parade to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the military, and a nationwide protest of the event has been planned for the same day across the United States. The parade on June 14 is said to be bringing more than 150 armored vehicles and more than 6,000 soldiers to Washington, D.C., where soldiers will be housed in nearby federal buildings. The event is expected to have 200,000 in attendance and will have the U.S. Secret Service, FBI, and other federal security working special security for the event. The FAA is also suspending flight operations on June 14. The parade will be an hour long and take place at 6:30 p.m. on Constitution Avenue Northwest between 15th and 23rd Street in the Capitol. In a statement from Army Spokesperson Steve Warren, the celebration will include a fireworks display and a daylong festival at the National Mall. Military officials said that the parade could cost taxpayers $45 million. Activist groups have planned nationwide peaceful protests for the same day to protest the celebration, stating the cost to taxpayers as one reason, as well as it coinciding with the president's 79th birthday, and ongoing claims of lack of funding for programs like SNAP and Medicaid while using funds for the parade. 'Instead of allowing this birthday parade to be the center of gravity, we will make action everywhere else the story of America that day: people coming together in communities across the country to reject strongman politics and corruption,' the No Kings Coalition's website reads. Local cities of Terre Haute and Vincennes are two of what is claimed to be at least 35 cities across the Hoosier state to be participating in these peaceful protests. Vincennes will be hosting its event from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on Patrick Henry Square, where they are inviting members of Knox County to line up along Second Street to hold signs. Attendees are encouraged to use street parking or utilize the city lots on Vigo Street between 4th and 5th Street. There will also be a sign-making event at the Knox County Democratic Party Headquarters prior to the event, and speakers are set to begin at 2:45 p.m. Terre Haute will be hosting its protest at the Vigo County Courthouse from 10 a.m. to noon, with speakers beginning at 11 a.m., featuring residents, community leaders, and local organizations. According to an article from Variety some Republicans appear to oppose the idea of the parade as well, comparing it to the sort of maneuver one sees in dictatorships abroad. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican, told reporters Tuesday that he has 'never been a big fan of goose-stepping soldiers in big tanks and missiles rolling down the street.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.